Cross-Market Liquidity Stress Forecasting Using Explainable Temporal Fusion Networks Under Leakage-Safe Evaluation Protocols
Keywords:
liquidity stress, temporal fusion networks, explainability, data leakage, cross-market, financial stability, evaluation protocolsAbstract
Liquidity stress in financial markets propagates rapidly across asset classes and geographies, posing systemic risks that challenge both private risk management and regulatory oversight. While machine learning models offer considerable promise for early warning systems, their deployment in cross-market settings is hampered by two interrelated problems: the opacity of many deep learning architectures, which undermines trust and regulatory acceptance, and the prevalence of data leakage in evaluation protocols, which produces overly optimistic performance estimates that fail to replicate in real-time deployment. This paper develops an explainable temporal fusion network (TFT) framework specifically designed for cross-market liquidity stress forecasting. The TFT architecture combines multi-horizon attention mechanisms with built-in interpretability components, including variable selection networks and temporal self-attention, enabling analysts to identify the primary drivers of predicted stress events. To address the second challenge, we propose a leakage-safe evaluation protocol that enforces strict temporal consistency through purging, embargoing, and combinatorial purged cross-validation. The framework is tested on a multi-asset dataset spanning equity, bond, and foreign exchange markets over a fifteen-year period. Results demonstrate that the TFT model achieves statistically significant improvements in stress prediction accuracy compared to baseline approaches, while the leakage-safe evaluation reduces false positive rates by over forty percent relative to naive walk-forward methods. We further examine structural trade-offs involving model complexity, interpretability, and computational sustainability, and discuss governance implications for deploying such systems within regulatory stress-testing frameworks. The findings underscore the necessity of embedding both explanatory mechanisms and rigorous evaluation discipline into the design of financial early warning infrastructures.
References
1. Liu, T. (2026). Leakage-Safe Benchmark Design for Market-Stress Early Warning: An Economically Credible Evaluation.
2. Lim, B., Arik, S. O., Loeff, N., & Pfister, T. (2021). Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 37(4), 1748–1764.
3. Brunnermeier, M. K., & Pedersen, L. H. (2009). Market liquidity and funding liquidity. Review of Financial Studies, 22(6), 2201–2238.
4. Lopez de Prado, M. (2018). Advances in Financial Machine Learning. Wiley.
5. Liu, T. (2026). Beyond volatility: A leakage-safe residual-stress signal for drawdown risk monitoring. Available at SSRN 6503179.
6. Acerbi, C., & Tasche, D. (2002). On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1487–1503.
7. Dixon, M. F., Halperin, I., & Bilokon, P. (2020). Machine Learning in Finance: From Theory to Practice. Springer.
8. Baig, M. M., Batool, M., & Rizvi, S. A. R. (2020). COVID-19 and liquidity: A review of the emerging literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(5), 1046–1068.
9. Wu, S., & Olson, D. L. (2010). Enterprise risk management: small business scorecard analysis. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 14(5), 378–396.
10. Liu, T. (2026). Interpretable Machine Learning for Volatility Forecasting Under Realistic Walk-Forward Constraints.
11. Hendershott, T., Jones, C. M., & Menkveld, A. J. (2011). Does algorithmic trading improve liquidity? Journal of Finance, 66(1), 1–33.
12. Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.
13. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.
14. Chollet, F. (2021). Deep Learning with Python (2nd ed.). Manning.
15. Liu, T. (2026). PCA-APT Stress Index for Market Drawdowns.
16. Ang, A., & Bekaert, G. (2002). International asset allocation with regime shifts. Review of Financial Studies, 15(4), 1137–1187.
17. Zhang, Z., & Zohren, S. (2021). Deep learning for financial time series forecasting. Quantitative Finance, 21(8), 1261–1284.
18. Hu, L., & Shen, Y. (2026). A predictive analytics approach for forecasting global stock index returns using deep learning techniques. Decision Analytics Journal, 100685.
19. Gneiting, T., & Raftery, A. E. (2007). Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(477), 359–378.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Global Financial Analytics Research Review

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.



